coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
3.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Istanbul.
4.  On an unspecified date in the late 1980s the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü) (“the General Directorate”) decided to partially expropriate the applicant’s land located in the Küçükçekmece district of Istanbul. The applicant only found out about this expropriation in May 2004.
5.  On 21 May 2004 the applicant brought a civil action before the Küçükçekmece Civil Court for additional expropriation compensation.
6.  On 21 June 2004 the title to the property was transferred to the General Directorate.
7.  On 19 July 2005 the Küçükçekmece Civil Court awarded the applicant 783,749,741,900 Turkish liras (TRL) as additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate.
8.  On 6 March 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
9.  The applicant subsequently initiated execution proceedings before the Şişli Execution Office to obtain her additional compensation.
10.  On 31 July 2008 the applicant received a partial payment of 1,159,699.20 Turkish liras (TRY[1]).
11.  On 5 August 2008 the applicant brought a case before the Şişli Execution Court in respect of the General Directorate’s outstanding debt and the interest rate that should be applied to that amount.
12.  On 24 October 2008 the Şişli Execution Court held that the General Directorate had an outstanding debt of TRY 479,605.44, payable with an interest rate of 30%[2] running from 31 July 2008.
13.  On 14 November 2008 the General Directorate appealed the judgment of the Şişli Execution Court. On 2 June 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.
14.  On 12 April 2010 the General Directorate paid the applicant TRY 745,797.18 to discharge its outstanding debt, together with interest.
4.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1930 and lives in Mytilini.
5.  On 15 November 1996 the applicant lodged an application with the Army Solidarity Fund (Ταμείο Αλληλοβοηθείας Στρατού) (hereafter “the Fund”) asking for an additional retirement premium, following the amendment of the date of his retirement. On 29 November and 18 December 1996 the Administrative Council of the Fund rejected his application at first instance and on appeal respectively.
6.  On 22 January 1997 the applicant lodged a recourse with the Athens First Instance Administrative Court challenging the decisions of the Fund.
7. In a judgment dated 29 May 1998 the Athens First Instance Administrative Court partially upheld the applicant's claim and awarded him 7,739,869 drachmas (GRD) (i.e. 22,714 euros) (judgment no. 5835/1998).
8.  On 5 November 1998 the Fund lodged an appeal.
9.  On 27 September 2001 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal accepted the Fund's appeal and quashed the first instance decision, after having concluded that the legal requirements for the award of an additional retirement premium had not been satisfied (judgement no. 4030/2001). The applicant was served with the decision on 25 February 2003.
10.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
11.  On 7 July 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the appellate decision and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 2034/2006).
12.  On 6 June 2008 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal lodged by the Fund against judgment no. 5835/1998 of the First Instance Administrative Court (judgment no. 1947/2008). The applicant was served with the decision on 26 May 2009.
7.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1947 respectively and live in Sofia. They are spouses.
8.  On the basis of an order of 26 September 1990 issued by the secretary of the Sofia municipality, the applicants concluded a sale-purchase contract with the Sofia municipality by which they bought a State-owned apartment. The price they paid was 12,926 old Bulgarian levs (“BGL”).
9.  On a later unspecified date the municipality apparently granted the tenancy of the same apartment to another family. In the beginning of 1992 the applicants brought a rei vindicatio action against them claiming the possession of the apartment.
10.  In a judgment of 22 February 1993 the Sofia District Court dismissed the claim. On 7 February 1995 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The courts found that the sale-purchase contract of 1990 was null and void ab initio as the administrative decision authorising the transaction had not been signed by the mayor, as required by law, but by the secretary of the municipality, the latter having had no power to sign in the mayor’s stead. The applicants, thus, had not shown that they were the owners of the apartment and could not take the possession thereof. The applicants did not submit a cassation appeal (a “petition for review”) before the Supreme Court. As a result, the judgment of 7 February 1995 became final on an unspecified date in 1995.
11.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1995 the applicants brought proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SRDA”) seeking damages from the Sofia municipality for having sold them the apartment in breach of the statutory requirements. The Sofia City Court held numerous hearings and adjourned the case on various occasions. A few hearings were adjourned for correction of the applicants’ statement of claim and in relation to their requests for increase of the claimed amounts, which delayed the examination of the case by several months. On 29 March 2002 the court delivered its judgment with which it allowed the claim and ordered the municipality to pay 24,000 new Bulgarian levs (“BGN”) in damages as well as costs and expenses.
12.  On appeal by the municipality filed on 30 May 2002, the Sofia Court of Appeal held one hearing on 28 May 2003. In a judgment of 6 June 2003 it reversed the lower court’s judgment and disallowed the claim. The court found that the authorities’ actions in concluding the sale-purchase contract did not give rise to a responsibility under the SRDA because the contract in issue entailed civil-law consequences and the case did not concern the exercise of State power.
13.  The applicants filed an appeal on points of law on 14 October 2003. The Supreme Court of Cassation held one hearing on 19 January 2005 and, in a final judgment of 18 February 2005, upheld the court of appeal’s judgment. The court held that the nullification of a civil transaction, which was possible in relation to any transaction and was an issue regulated by the general civil law – the Contracts and Obligations Act, could not entail State liability under the SRDA.
6.  The applicant, Mr Hartwig Dreyer, is a German national who was born in 1926 and lives in Neumunster, Germany.
7.  On 8 September 1983 the Paris International Court of Arbitration ordered the company М. (“the debtor”) to pay the company Ingenieurbüro, H.D., which was solely owned and managed by the applicant, 110,000 German marks (DM), plus interest.
8.  By a final decision of 28 March 1991, the Federal Court in Belgrade recognised this decision.
9.  On 13 September 1993 the applicant sought enforcement of that decision before the Skopje Municipal Court against the debtor’s legal successors, which had resulted from its division in 1982.
10.  On 16 September 1993 the Skopje Municipal Court granted this request. On 2 March 1994 the applicant further specified the debtors, namely companies which succeeded the debtor’s legal successors after their transformation in 1990 (“the companies”). On 24 March 1994 the Skopje Municipal Court dismissed the companies’ objections that they had lacked the requisite capacity to stand in the proceedings.
11.  On 6 January 1995 the applicant specified that in 1989 the debtor had seized to exist and its rights and obligations had transferred to a newly created company M.c.o.. The applicant therefore sought the Skopje Municipal Court to amend the decision of 24 March 1994. This request remained undecided.
12.  On 12 February 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the companies’ appeals and remitted the case for re-examination.
13.  On 28 April 2000 the Skopje Court of First Instance requested the applicant to specify the respective debtor or debtors, having in mind his submission of 6 January 1995 (see paragraph 11 above). On 26 May 2000 the applicant reiterated his submission of 2 March 1994 (see paragraph 10 above).
14.  On 1 March 2004 the Skopje Court of First Instance upheld the companies’ objections and set aside (“се става вон сила”) the enforcement order of 16 September 1993. The court found that the companies had not had capacity to stand in the proceedings since company M., referring presumably to M.c.o., had still existed and it was to be considered as the debtor’s legal successor liable to pay the debt.
15.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant was served with the decision of 1 March 2004 through the Embassy of the respondent State in Germany. The parties did not dispute that the applicant’s appeal of 30 April 2005, which remained undecided, was lodged out of time.
5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Polskava.
6.  On 5 September 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Slovenska Bistrica Local Court seeking annulment of a purchase contract.
7.  On 6 July 1999 the first-instance court annulled the contract. An appeal was lodged.
8.  On 24 October 2000 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.
9.  Between 12 July 2006 and 15 February 2007 three hearings were held.
10.  On 27 February 2007 the applicant withdrew the claim and a decision on termination of proceedings was issued on 21 March 2007.
5.  The applicants were born in 1990 and 1984 respectively. At the time of introducing the application, they lived in Budapest and Nyírbátor respectively.
6.  The applicants entered Hungary illegally and were intercepted and arrested by the police on 10 March 2009. On the next day their expulsion was ordered but suspended because of practical difficulties. Their detention under immigration law was ordered until 20 March, with a view to their eventual expulsion. However, on 18 March they applied for asylum, claiming that they were persecuted in their home country for being homosexual.
7.  The asylum proceedings started on 25 March and, on 9 April, the applicants were interviewed by the refugee authority, an agency belonging under the jurisdiction of the Office of Immigration and Nationality. On the same day their case was admitted to the in-merit phase. Under section 55(3) of the Asylum Act (see below in Chapter II), once a case reaches this stage, the alien administration authority (another agency of the Office of Immigration and Nationality) shall, at the initiative of the refugee authority, terminate the detention of the asylum-seeker. Nevertheless, the applicants’ detention continued. After another interview on 28 May, on 19 June their asylum requests were dismissed. The applicants’ action to challenge this decision in court was unsuccessful.
8.  Relying on section 55(3), the applicants’ lawyer then requested their release. However, since the refugee authority had not initiated their release, the request was denied by the alien administration authority. On 20 July 2009 the applicants’ lawyer requested judicial review of their detention. This motion was rejected by the Nyírbátor District Court on 19 August 2009 with the formal reasoning that since the refugee authority had not initiated the applicant’s release, the alien administration authority had been under no obligation to order their release and that therefore their detention was lawful.
9.  The applicants were released only on 10 September 2009, after the maximum period of detention in such cases had expired.
7.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1961, 1959, 1965 and 1966 respectively and live in Chişinău.
8.  As with the applicants in the pilot judgment of Olaru and others, cited above, the applicants in the instant cases complained of a breach of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the authorities’ failure to comply with final judicial decisions delivered by domestic courts in their favour.
9.  By a final judgment of 27 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mr Vartic and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Chişinău local authorities, to provide him with accommodation. On 24 December 2007, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mr Vartic with an apartment situated in Chişinău. Thus, the final judgment in favour of Mr Vartic was enforced.
10.  By final judgments of 2 August 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mr Ţurcan and Mr Tudoreanu and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Chişinău local authorities, to provide them with accommodation. On 24 December 2007, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mr Tudoreanu with an apartment situated in Chişinău. On 21 February 2008, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mr Ţurcan with an apartment situated in Chişinău. Thus, the final judgments in favour of Mr Ţurcan and Mr Tudoreanu were enforced.
11.  By final judgments of 11 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mrs Cerneţchi and Mrs Luniov and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Chişinău local authorities, to provide them with accommodation. On 21 February 2008, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mrs Cerneţchi and Mrs Luniov each with an apartment situated in Chişinău. Thus, the final judgments in favour of Mrs Cerneţchi and Mrs Luniov were enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Poltava.
5.  On 2 June 2000 she lodged a claim with the Poltava Court against the V. company in a corporate dispute between them.
6.  On 30 January 2001 the court requested the applicant to rectify her claim in accordance with the procedural formalities by 10 February 2001.
7.  On 29 May 2006 the same court rejected the applicant’s claim as lodged out of the period of limitation.
8.  On 5 October 2006 and 8 August 2007, respectively, the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court upheld the above judgment.
9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings nine hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s requests or due to her or both parties’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed that three hearings had been adjourned at her request or due to her failure to appear. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings to approximately eight and a half months. Some twenty one hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of the respondent, its requests for the adjournments, the need to collect additional documents, sickness of a judge, transfer of the case to another judge, moving of the court to another premise or for unspecified reasons.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kharkiv.
5.  On 7 February 1994 he lodged a claim with the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) against two companies and a local institute, by which he sought to be provided with a flat.
6.  On 31 March 1995 the above court partly allowed the claim and ordered the institute to provide the applicant with a flat. On 16 May 1995 the Kharkiv Regional Court upheld that judgment.
7.  On 20 September 1995, 26 February 1996, 17 November 1999 and 10 December 2001 the District Court delivered additional judgments in the case. On 17 October 1995, 19 July 1996, 29 September 2000 and 13 March 2002, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court and the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed those judgments and remitted the case for fresh examination.
8.  On 11 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the ruling of 13 March 2002. On 10 March 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to lodge it in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 3 March 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 13 March 2002.
9.  On 2 December 2004 the District Court delivered the additional judgment in the case. On 9 February 2005 and 18 January 2008, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld it.
10.  In the course of the proceedings fifteen hearings were adjourned due to the respondents’ failure to appear, due to the illness or absence of a judge or for unspecified reasons. One forensic examination was ordered (between 15 October 1997 and 9 August 1999).
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Donetsk.
5.  On 17 November 2001 she instituted court proceedings against her employer and the Social Insurance Fund for the recovery of health-related payments allegedly due to her.
6.  On 10 September 2003 the Kuybyshevskyy District Court (“the District Court”) delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed against it. On 13 November 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) requested the applicant to lodge her appeal, by 25 December 2003, in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 15 January 2004 it quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.
7.  On 29 November 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 25 March 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld it. On 3 October 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination.
8.  On 17 June 2010 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.
9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant modified her claim on four occasions. Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s and other parties’ failure to appear. Thirty further hearings were adjourned, mainly due to other parties’ failure to appear, the absence or sickness of a judge, the need to collect additional documents or for unspecified reasons. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted for about one year and one month.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chernigiv.
5.  On 29 May 1998 he lodged a claim with the Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernigiv (“the District Court”) against the Ministry of the Interior seeking damages for injuries caused to him by its employee Mr O.
6.  From 18 December 1998 to 22 July 1999 and from 23 September 1999 to 1 November 1999 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against Mr O.
7.  Following two remittals of the case for fresh examination, on 19 May 2004 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim and awarded him certain amounts in damages.
8.  On 16 September 2004 and 30 April 2007 respectively the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld the above judgment. The decision of 30 April 2007 was served on the applicant on 14 August 2007.
9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant three times amended his claim. The courts adjourned fifteen hearings following the applicant’s requests or due to his and other parties’ failure to attend them. The applicant disagreed stating that he had not been informed of the hearings which he had not attended. Some twenty two hearings were further adjourned following other parties’ requests, their failure to appear or for unspecified reasons.
5. The applicant company is specialised in the production of chemical products in the Expo-Business-Chişinău Free Economic Zone.
6.  On 15 October 2001 the State Tax Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) ordered the applicant company to pay value-added tax in the amount of 2,021,312 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 126,000 euros (EUR)) and a fine of MDL 1,617,049 (approximately EUR 101,000) for failure to pay the aforementioned value-added tax. The applicant company disputed the tax assessment and argued that it was exempt from paying value-added tax in accordance with the Act establishing the Expo-Business-Chişinău Free Economic Zone (“the FEZ Act”). As the Inspectorate did not accept the applicant company’s arguments and its interpretation of the law, the applicant company instituted proceedings.
7.  On 19 June 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice issued a final ruling on the case and found in favour of the applicant company. The applicant was cleared of the obligation to pay the sums imposed by the Inspectorate.
8.  On 20 October 2005 Parliament adopted a bill on the interpretation of the FEZ Act (“the Interpretation Act”), giving the FEZ Act a different interpretation from that given by the applicant company and the courts.
9.  On 2 November 2005 the Inspectorate applied for review of the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 June 2002, on the basis of the new interpretation given to the law by Parliament.
10.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant company was informed by telephone by the Registry of the Supreme Court that a hearing in the case would take place on 16 November 2005. The company’s chief executive officer applied for an adjournment, arguing that he would not be able to participate in the hearing.
11.  On 16 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice held a hearing in the case, in the absence of the applicant company’s representative, and upheld the application for review lodged by the Inspectorate. It quashed the previous judgment and ruled in favour of the Inspectorate.
12.  On 30 November 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the Interpretation Act unconstitutional. In view of that, on 12 December 2006 the applicant company lodged an application for review of the judgment of 16 November 2005 with the Supreme Court of Justice. However, the application was dismissed on 24 January 2007.
13.  The parties disagree on whether the judgment of 16 November 2005 was enforced. According to the applicant company, it was partially enforced and it paid 42,906 Moldovan Lei (MDL). The rest of the sum sought by the Inspectorate could not be paid because the applicant company became insolvent. The Government dispute this submission and argue that the judgment of 16 November 2005 was never enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Alushta.
5.  On 19 July 1999 she instituted proceedings in the Alushta Court against her former employer seeking recovery of various job-related payments, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the court’s ruling obliging her former employer to amend her work records.
6.  On 16 May 2003, following three remittals of the case for fresh examination, the above court allowed the applicant’s claim in part.
7.  On 22 December 2003 and 20 April 2006, respectively, the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment. The final decision was served on the applicant on 15 May 2006.
8.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant twelve times specified her claim. One hearing was adjourned at the applicant’s request. Sixteen further hearings were adjourned at the other party’s request, due to its representative’s failure to appear and the absence of a judge or for unspecified reasons. One forensic examination was ordered by the court (between 19 April 2001 and 26 April 2002).